COOL's pros, cons cited at Texas listening session

By MONETTE TAYLOR | South Central Texas Edition

At the May 1 meeting in Austin, USDA representative Craig Morris detailed the specifics of the new COOL law, which is set to change from a voluntary measure to a mandatory one in September 2004.

May 15, 2003 -- AUSTIN - After hearing the May 1 presentation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and listening to four hours of speakers, attendees at the "listening session" concerning the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) left without any, real solutions as to what will work best for U.S. producers.

It's the law:

COOL legislation became a public law under the 2002 Farm Bill. The reasoning behind the new law is so consumers will be able to decide between some food products raised in the United States versus the same product from another country.

At the present time, participation in the COOL program is voluntary, but on Sept. 30, 2004, it is scheduled to become mandatory for specified commodities to be labeled with the country of their origin. As it stands, now, the consumer has little idea, except for local branded products, where certain retail foods originate.

Commodities covered by the COOL law include fresh or frozen muscle cuts of beef, veal, lamb and pork; ground beef, lamb and pork; farm-raised fish and shellfish; wild fish and shellfish; perishable agricultural commodities such as fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables; and peanuts.

Excluded from the law's labeling regulations are poultry and foodservice enterprises.

Texas' top ag official:

"Input on these guidelines is critical because they will have a tremendous impact on our state's number one agricultural industry - cattle. Texas is the nation's top cattle producer with some 14 million head affected by this provision," said Texas Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs at the May 1 session.

"Additionally, Texas sheep, lamb, hog and fish industries are greatly impacted. For example, calves born this spring must comply with the mandatory labeling guidelines ... and producers still have no clear answers on what types of records they need to keep on these animals to prove country of origin."

Pros and Cons:

Opponents of COOL stated the program will cost too much money, and the required paperwork (record-keeping) will hamper everyone involved - from the producer to the packer.

Texas Cattle Feeders Association's Chairman-Elect Ernie Morales said his organization is opposed to the COOL being a "mandatory" program. "Mandatory COOL will add costs to the production, processing, distribution, and sale of beef. Estimates range up to nearly $10 billion to assume additional costs of a COOL system if there is a chance the benefits will not be sufficient to cover such costs."

Proponents seemed to believe the entire program is very simple.

Shane Sklar, executive director of the Independent Cattlemen's Association (ICA), told the audience he believes that cattle producers "should be allowed to sign an affidavit declaring their animals' country of origin," and said that the "self-certification" would start a simple paper trail that is, largely, already in place.

Yet, retailers, stockyard owners, and packers seem to believe that as regulations to implement the mandatory COOL program progress, they will be forced to "re-invent the wheel," when it comes to record keeping.

Proponents also said the consumer will be willing to pay more for U.S. commodities.

Texas Farmers Union President Wes Sims said the COOL law is "one of the most important efforts to ensure the survivability and to enhance economic opportunities for U.S., independent livestock and produce farmers. ... This (COOL) is really no different than the retail product differentiation sought by processors and retailers when they label or brand products as a means to gain acceptance and loyalty and increase their share of the market."

The Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) backs COOL, and Bill Quinney, board member of the ICA, an affiliate of R-CALF USA, said while he backed the COOL program, he didn't understand why USDA was making it so complicated.

Several interested consumers spoke out in favor of COOL and said according to surveys they'd seen and/or been a part of, the general public is ready and willing to pay more for commodities that are from the United States.

Members of the public speaking at the May 1 session, there were several (a handful) of people that represented produce and hogs farmers, and the question was raised, "Why not chickens, walnuts, pecans?" Most voiced opposition to COOL, thinking the little producer would end up paying the price. One sheep producer from Sonora voiced support of the new labeling law.

Another observation: Of the speakers, about 90 percent were involved with beef cattle production.

The Guts of COOL:

According to Craig Morris, USDA representative, the public law detailing COOL states that a retailer must net at least $230,000 per year to be included in the COOL, and that retailer is responsible for making sure there is some kind of a label on the commodity involved. The label, itself, must be legible, in English, and not interfere with other necessary labeling on the product, or branding labels, such as "GO TEXAN," or "Idaho Potatoes."

Beef, pork, and lamb included in COOL will be the muscle cuts and ground meat, and the farm-raised fish and shellfish will include fillets, steaks and nuggets, according to the USDA. Wild fish and shellfish means "naturally-born or hatchery-raised and harvested in the wild, includes fillets, steaks and nuggets." It excludes net-pen aquaculture.

The covered commodities are excluded if they are an "ingredient in a processed food item. Examples include salmon in sushi, apple slices in a pie crust, tenderloin in a ready-to-cook Beef Wellington and peanuts in a candy bar, according to the USDA.

As far as the provisions of the law, beef, lamb, and pork must be "derived exclusively from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S.; wild fish and shellfish must be derived exclusively from fish or shellfish harvested in U.S. waters, or by a U.S. flagged vessel, and processed in the U.S., or aboard a U.S. flagged vessel."

Farm-raised fish and shellfish must "be derived, exclusively, from fish or shellfish hatched, raised, harvested and processed in the United States."

Fresh and/or frozen fruits, vegetables and peanuts must be exclusively produced in the United States.

The current thinking for regulations concerning mixed origin products is that each country and step in the production will be identified. Examples might be a salad mix which would state that the lettuce is a product of the United States, and the tomatoes are a product of Mexico.

Labeling imported, covered commodities would be determined by existing federal law for products entering the United States and labeled in "conformance with origin established at the time the product arrives at the U.S. port of entry," states the USDA.

Enforcement of the law, once COOL is mandatory, will carry a stiff penalty. According to the public law, if the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture determines a retailer is in violation of the law, he will be notified and given 30 days to "take the necessary steps to comply." At the end of that 30-day period, if the retailer is found to have "willfully" violated the rules, he can be fined up to $10,000 for each violation.

Making the claim:

In other provisions of the law, the information used by any person who supplies a covered commodity to a retailer "shall provide information to the retailer" which indicates the country of origin of the product.

Records can only be created by the person having "first-hand knowledge" of the country designation for each production step declared in the country-of-origin claim. Retailers will be required to maintain records that verify the country of origin on the covered commodities for two years.

Several speakers from the audience asked why the burden of labeling couldn't be placed on imported commodities, rather than asking U.S. producers and establishments to do all the paperwork that will be required by COOL. Because the May 1 event was a "listening session" for the USDA, there were no answers offered.

In the end:

While the majority of attendees at the May 1 session in Austin seemed to favor COOL in its voluntary mode, most producers are just eager for the USDA to come up with the final rulings so they can determine what they need to accomplish before Sept. 30, 2004.

"Today's comments will help us as we continue to work to implement this law in a way that will minimize burdens on producers and consumers," explained USDA's Hawks.

(For further information on COOL requirements, visit the AMS COOL website at www.ams.usda.gov/cool/ or contact AMS Public Affairs at 202-720-8998.)